Ethical Debate on Savior Siblings: Ethics and Morality

Savior Siblings: The Ethical Debate At a hospital, one of the most fulfilling tasks carried out daily is that of helping mothers usher in newborns into the world. Proud parents of beautiful healthy babies cannot contain their joy as they take their bundles of joy home ready to embark on a journey full of endless moments of happiness. However, some parents' joys are short lived when their children develop life threatening illnesses and complications that leave them struggling each day to finding the best treatments.

Although they make the decision to do all it will take to save the child's life, their options are limited particularly because most of the most common illnesses, such as Diamond Blackfan Anemia or leukemia, often require blood or bone marrow transfers which they are not in a position to give as they are not necessarily the exact tissue matches for the concerned child.

Confronted with dilemmas on how to save such children's life, doctors have adopted the practice of creating babies that provide stem cells or transplants to their siblings. To create savior siblings, sometimes referred to as spare part children, a cell is usually sourced from an embryo then tested to determine if it will match the cells of the older ill sibling. If they are a match, the umbilical stem cells of the new baby can grow into any part of the sick child's body.

Therefore, they are implanted into the affected area in the older child's body, which often results in them being cured. The hospital has been presented with an opportunity to help desperate parents using this method after being given a chance to hire a doctor, who will specialize in creating spare part children. As the head of research at the hospital, it is imperative to present a solid argument in light of the conflicting views of the board of trustees.

This text takes a look at spare part children in detail and evaluates whether it is advisable to hire the doctor to provide the service of creating "spare parts" children in the future. Discussion According to Whitehouse (2010), experts estimate that there are more 250 spare part children in existence in the United States today. In fact, in Chicago alone, about 1000 families had adopted the in vitro fertilization (IVF) method to select a donor child for the benefit of an older sick sibling.

Furthermore, the first family to attempt this, the Nash family of Colorado was able to save their six-year-old daughter's life using their son Adam, and the result was two happy healthy children (Whitehouse, 2010). The main implication of this is that if the procedure is done for the right reasons, then parents can help save their child's life.

The doctor is an expert at what he does - therefore, it is only correct to hire him because in most cases, only the umbilical cord is harvested and since it is usually discarded under normal circumstances, there is no real harm caused to the spare part child. In agreement with Dr. Brookoff, a member of the ethics panel, the hospital should not withhold treatment that has been offered to other babies before, and resulted in improved health conditions.

As such, doctors in the hospital should take all available options to save the sick child's life; even if it means creating a spare part child. Another motivation for engaging the services of the doctor would be to appreciate the advancement of genetic technology in the field of medicine and to put it to use in this hospital. Today, parents have been provided with a chance to save a sick child by getting another child.

If there are parents out there who are conversant with the consequences of the procedure, willing to accept and love the new child even if it is not a match, and who are desperate to prolong the life of their child; then who are we to deny them such an opportunity? It will be useful to have such a doctor on call in case the hospital gets couples who are ready and willing to go the extra mile.

With the ethics vetting committee and the proper guidelines in place, this hospital is best placed to carry out the procedure as all the relevant measures will be taken to ensure that the entire procedure is done in the right manner and for the right reasons. Otherwise, parents will just walk into another hospital, where services might be skewed. Despite the advantages, one thing remains clear. Such a procedure is ethically wrong.

One reason for this is the fact that when scientists take cells from embryos and go ahead to 'chose' the right embryo, then it amounts to playing God. Reverend John Paris, a Professor of Bioethics from the panel explicitly states that the only ethically acceptable way to sustain a life should be reasonable and sustainable.

Hiring the doctor would imply giving them the power to discard embryos that do not provide the required matches and since every embryo represents a new life and hence is a gift with a purpose; throwing it away is equivalent to taking the life of a potential person. Another argument can be presented from the point-of-view of the spare part child. Overall (2012) states that savior siblings do not consent to donating their bone marrow or blood.

They, therefore, are presented with the risk of being unwelcome in the concerned family if they are not the perfect match. Paola, Valker, and Nickson (2010) also argue that the child is bound to suffer the physical and psychological harm associated with the failure of being able to keep a sibling alive. Deborah Campbell from the channel opines that doctors should always consider the degree of suffering that a baby may be exposed to.

Furthermore, the spare part child will one day come to the realization that they were created only for the benefit of their other sibling, and this will have psychological and emotional consequences. If the doctor is hired, it would mean that the hospital has agreed to sentence innocent children to a life.